Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Injunction Against Unauthorized Streaming of ICC World Cup Cricket Matches: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Delhi has granted an injunction to restrain the unauthorized dissemination and broadcast of ICC World Cup cricket matches. The judgment, delivered on September 27, 2023, comes in response to a plea by Plaintiffs Star India Private Limited and Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., seeking protection against illegal streaming and communication of the prestigious sporting event.

The court observed, "Any injunction granted by a Court of law ought to be effective in nature," highlighting the urgency of protecting the rights of the content holders. It further stated, "The rights of IP holders cannot be rendered redundant in the virtual world, and the enforcement of rights on the internet has to be real and effective."

The Plaintiffs, who hold exclusive global media rights for various ICC events, expressed concerns that rogue websites could potentially undermine their rights and revenues by streaming the matches without authorization. The court found that the Plaintiffs had made a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction and noted the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiffs.

Under the judgment, Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, primarily rogue websites, are restrained from communicating, screening, or disseminating any part of the ICC World Cup Cricket matches on any electronic or digital platform. Domain Name Registrars have been directed to lock and suspend these rogue websites, while ISPs/Telephone Service Providers are ordered to block them. The Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology are also required to issue blocking orders for illegal streaming websites.

Recognizing the dynamic nature of online infringement, the court granted Plaintiffs the liberty to promptly inform authorities of any new rogue websites that may emerge during the event for immediate blocking. Non-infringing websites may approach the court for a modification of the injunction if they provide an undertaking not to engage in the unauthorized dissemination of ICC World Cup content.

The judgment reflects the evolving landscape of intellectual property protection in the digital age, emphasizing the need for swift and effective remedies to combat online piracy of sporting events and copyrighted content. The court's decision aligns with recent developments in intellectual property law and international recommendations for combating online piracy of live events.

This landmark judgment not only safeguards the interests of content holders but also sets a precedent for addressing digital piracy in real-time, ensuring that the rights of intellectual property owners are protected and enforced effectively in the virtual realm.

Representing Advocates, Mr. Sidharth Chopra and Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, played pivotal roles in presenting the case and securing this significant legal victory for the Plaintiffs.

Date of Decision: September 27, 2023

STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED  & ANR. vs JIOLIVE.TV & ORS.

Latest Legal News